http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war
After reading all this I think they have him dead to rights, I'm a conservative but I'm not so blinded by partisan politics to not see he was lying.
I'm enjoying watching these narcissistic public figures bite the dust, hopefully people will exploit this digital age angle where everything one says is recorded forever to be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
I find it funny that this has been out there right under the nose of the millions of people who hate him and the political groups that have been paying to bring him down. Now that this angle has been discovered look for many more politicians and talking heads to be publicly destroyed.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war
After reading all this I think they have him dead to rights, I'm a conservative but I'm not so blinded by partisan politics to not see he was lying.

I assume you're joking. O'Reilly produced original documents from both wars proving the Mother Jones mouthpiece was flat-out lying. It was a total fabrication, typical of MJ and that particular so-called "reporter". I'm sure you can Google O'Reilly's on-air response and see the documents for yourself.

I can't believe anyone actually believes what they see on television or the internet, especially about anything important, ESPECIALLY from freakazoid partisan websites, without vetting it first. That's like believing anything BSNBC says about O'Reily.

I can't believe anyone actually believes what they see on television or the internet, especially about anything important, ESPECIALLY from freakazoid partisan websites, without vetting it first. That's like believing anything BSNBC says about O'Reily.

Your conclusions are based upon what you see on TV or the internet. Why do you believe it?

Former CBS News correspondent Eric Engberg fired back at Bill O'Reilly on Monday, telling HuffPost Live the Fox News host was "dishonest" and "irresponsible" in recounting his story that he reported in a "war zone" during the Falklands War in 1982.

Engberg, who worked alongside O'Reilly in Argentina, called O'Reilly "completely nutty," and asserted to host Marc Lamont Hill that O'Reilly lied when he told Howard Kurtz on Sunday that he was "out there pretty much by myself, because other CBS News correspondents were hiding in the hotel.”

Engberg was one of these "other CBS News correspondents," and refuted O'Reilly's account.

"There were five correspondents working that story for CBS. Four of them had been on that remote site for weeks because the Argentine government would not allow us to go to the Falkland islands," he said.

Engberg offered an explanation for O'Reilly's harsh words against his former CBS colleagues, saying that O'Reilly is still "bitter" that CBS News told him weeks after the night in question that O'Reilly "wasn't going to make it as a correspondent."

Engberg also defended the original New York Times article O'Reilly has cited to verify his claims of gunshot fire during the Argentine riot. Engberg claimed the story actually debunks O'Reilly's account.

"I have read that story by Richard Meislin, and it is an accurate depiction of what happened that night. That is not combat," Engberg said. "That is not a combat zone."

Here he is in a short video lying, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3veRZuHSew
"I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I'm looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important."
He is lying because he is saying he was in the Falklands in a war zone when neither is true, he was in a riot in Buenos Aires which was not a war zone and is not in the Falklands.
In his 2001 book, The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America, O'Reilly stated, "You know that I am not easily shocked. I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands."
Now if he had said, "during the Falklands war, in a combat zone..." this could be argued to be factually correct but contextually dishonest, trying to trick us with words as a riot could be argued to be "combat" and "during the Falklands war" is not claiming to be in the Falklands. At various times over the years he has said words to this effect which are deceiving and contextually a lie but they have him quotes that are straight up a lie, "in a war zone in Argentina in the Falklands"

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

People interested in both sides of the story can find more at
http://tinyurl.com/leq3yh4 , including a 16 minute examination of the issue from independent media critic Howard Kurtz of Media Buzz -- a guy well known for standing up to O'Reilly or anyone else he disagrees with. As you will see in the closing video and in the documentation I referred to above, CBS and the NYT reportage support O'Reilly's claims.

People who just hate O'Reilly and Fox News need not bother. Nothing will change their uninformed minds. This is much like the tonnage of accusations that I, or mrgybe, or techno, etc. lie here: the archives disprove it so conclusively that the accusers run and hide or just change the topic when asked for proof, falsely assuming they fooled the intelligent viewers.

Last edited by isobars on Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum